Lorinda H. M. Hoover Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 I was working on translating Deuteronomy 30:15-20, which is my preaching text for Sunday, when I ran across an odd tagging in ETCBC. For the word וְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִ֛יתָ, it provides the following tagging information: הִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִ֛יתָ (חוה) חוה־1 Verb hof perf 2 masc sing make known, declare This surprised me even before I pulled up HALOT, as it sure looked to be what I learned to call a hishtaphel. When checking Halot, 1-חוה does not have a hophil/hofil form, nor does the definition make sense in the context of Deuteronomy 30:17. On the other hand, 2-חוה lists this specific inflected form as an eštaf, and the definition (worship/fall prostrate) makes total sense in this context. Both HMT-W4 and BHS-T tag וְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִ֛יתָ as being from , 2-חוה, and list it as a "histaf" I've reported it as a correction already, but I though I'd ask about it here, in case I'm missing something. I'm well aware that my Hebrew is rusty and that theories about grammar, etc. have evolved since I formally studied Hebrew 30 some years ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Denckla Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 I can't help other than to suggest also asking at The Biblical Hebrew Forum and/or on Twitter. On Twitter, you might at-mention some or all of the Twitter users in this thread: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Holmstedt Posted June 20 Share Posted June 20 You're not missing anything. The "HOF" parsing is just incorrect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorinda H. M. Hoover Posted June 20 Author Share Posted June 20 1 hour ago, Robert Holmstedt said: You're not missing anything. The "HOF" parsing is just incorrect. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorinda H. M. Hoover Posted June 21 Author Share Posted June 21 I just did some checking, and it looks like all of the hishtaphel forms of 2-חוה are incorrectly marked as hophil/hof of 1-חוה־. Note only that but 1-חוה־ and 2-חוה are swapped around in the ETCBC, and there are errors in the box that comes up when you choose Search>Enter Inflected Form: See how all the glosses for all the different חוה roots are the same....and that's true for the next set of words in the image that have the same spelling but are considered different words with different meanings. Compare the same box when the HMT-W4 is the chosen text: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now